I’d like to expand on something Monique Begg wrote in her letter, published in the April 27 Sun.
A couple of years ago, Council supposedly compared the cost of renovating and expanding the existing town hall, versus the cost of building a new one. The conclusion was that the renovation would be very expensive and, for just a few dollars more, we could erect a gleaming new building. At the time, I questioned the validity of the estimate to renovate, pointing out that the statement of work for the renovation came from the very architect firm that was trying to sell us a new building. It was in their interest to make the renovation look as expensive as possible.
Well, now the cost to build anew is looking a lot higher. Why aren’t we looking back at the option of renovating the old building? Why are we planning to tear down the old shop before we have a concrete plan to build a new one?
The old building is a metaphor for good government; just what you need and no more. There’s no fancy façade, no gingerbread, not much ostentation at public expense.
If we really wanted to, we could probably clean up the mess from the little waste basket fire, build some additional rooms, and put that building back into service for one third of what a new one would cost. Instead, we’re going to tear it down to replace it with, well, we don’t know what with. Is that what they call running the town like a business?
Greg Adams
Read Monique Begg’s letter here and join the conversation.
